Hidden systems in primary care cancer detection: an embedded qualitative intervention development study.

BACKGROUND: UK cancer mortality is worse than in many other high-income countries, partly because of diagnostic delays in primary care. AIM: To understand beliefs and behaviours of GPs, and systems of general practice teams, to inform the Think Cancer! intervention development. DESIGN AND SETTING: An embedded qualitative study guided by behaviour change models (COM-B [Capability, Opportunity, Motivation - Behaviour] and theoretical domains framework [TDF]) in primary care in Wales, UK. METHOD: Twenty qualitative, semi-structured telephone interviews with GPs were undertaken and four face-to-face focus groups held with practice teams. Framework analysis was used and results were mapped to multiple, overlapping components of COM-B and TDF. RESULTS: Three themes illustrate complex, multilevel referral considerations facing GPs and practice teams; external influences and constraints; and the role of practice systems and culture. Tensions emerged between individual considerations of GPs (Capability and Motivation) and context-dependent external pressures (Opportunity). Detecting cancer was guided not only by external requirements, but also by motivational factors GPs described as part of their cancer diagnostics process. External influences on the diagnosis process often resulted from the primary-secondary care interface and social pressures. GPs adapted their behaviour to deal with this disconnect. Positive practice culture and supportive practice-based systems ameliorated these tensions and complexity. CONCLUSION: By exploring individual GP behaviours together with practice systems and culture we contribute new understanding about how cancer diagnosis operates in primary care and how delays can be improved. We highlight commonly overlooked dynamics and tensions that are experienced by GPs as a tension between individual decision making (Capability and Motivation) and external considerations, such as pressures in secondary care (Opportunity).

'ThinkCancer!' - Randomised feasibility trial of a novel practice-based early cancer diagnosis intervention.

BACKGROUND: UK cancer deaths remain high; primary care is key for earlier cancer diagnosis as half of avoidable delays occur here. Improvement is possible through lower referral thresholds, better guideline adherence, and better safety netting systems. Few interventions target whole practice teams. We developed a novel whole practice team intervention to address this. AIM: To test the feasibility and acceptability of a novel, complex behavioural intervention 'ThinkCancer!' for assessment in a subsequent Phase III trial. DESIGN & SETTING: Pragmatic, superiority pilot RCT with an embedded process evaluation and feasibility economic analysis in Welsh general practices. METHOD: Clinical outcome data were collected from practices (the unit of randomisation). Practice characteristics and cancer safety netting systems were assessed. Individual practice staff completed evaluation and feedback forms, and qualitative interviews. The intervention was adapted and refined. RESULTS: Trial recruitment and workshop deliveries took place between March 2020 to May 2021. Trial progression criteria for recruitment, intervention fidelity and routine data collection were met. Staff-level fidelity, retention and individual level data collection processes were reviewed and amended. Interviews highlighted positive participant views on all aspects of the intervention. All practices set out to liberalise referral thresholds appropriately, implement guidelines, and address safety netting plans in detail. CONCLUSION: 'ThinkCancer!' appears feasible and acceptable; the new iteration of the workshops was completed, and the Phase III trial has been funded to assess the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of this novel professional behaviour change intervention. Delivery at scale to multiple practices will likely improve fidelity and reach.

Setting the context for a complex dental intervention of role substitution in care homes: Initial process evaluation findings.

OBJECTIVES: SENIOR (uSing rolE-substitutioN In care homes to improve oRal health) is a randomised controlled trial designed to determine whether role substitution could improve oral health for this population. A parallel process evaluation was undertaken to understand context. This paper reports on the first phase of the process evaluation. BACKGROUND: The oral health and quality-of-life of older adults residing in care homes is poorer than those in the community. Oral health care provision is often unavailable and a concern and challenge for managers. The use of Dental Therapists and Dental Nurses rather than dentists could potentially meet these needs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 21 key stakeholders who either worked or had experience of dependent care settings. Questions were theoretically informed by the: Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PAHRIS) framework. The focus was on contextual factors that could influence adoption in practice and the pathway-to-impact. Interviews were fully transcribed and analysed thematically. RESULTS: Three themes (receptive context, culture, and leadership) and 11 codes were generated. Data show the complexity of the setting and contextual factors that may work as barriers and facilitators to intervention delivery. Managers are aware of the issues regarding oral health and seek to provide best care, but face many challenges including staff turnover, time pressures, competing needs, access to services, and financial constraints. Dental professionals recognise the need for improvement and view role substitution as a viable alternative to current practice. CONCLUSION: Although role substitution could potentially meet the needs of this population, an in-depth understanding of contextual factors appeared important in understanding intervention delivery and implementation.

Using a theoretically informed process evaluation alongside a trial to improve oral health for care home residents.

BACKGROUND: Poor oral health is common among older adults residing in care homes impacting their diet, quality of life, self-esteem, general health and well-being. The care home setting is complex and many factors may affect the successful implementation of oral care interventions. Exploring these factors and their embedded context is key to understanding how and why interventions may or may not be successfully implemented within their intended setting. OBJECTIVES: This methodology paper describes the approach to a theoretically informed process evaluation alongside a pragmatic randomised controlled trial, so as to understand contextual factors, how the intervention was implemented and important elements that may influence the pathways to impact. MATERIALS AND METHODS: SENIOR is a pragmatic randomised controlled trial designed to improve the oral health of care home residents in the United Kingdom. The trial uses a complex intervention to promote and provide oral care for residents, including education and training for staff. RESULTS: An embedded, theoretically informed process evaluation, drawing on the PAHRIS framework and utilising a qualitative approach, will help to understand the important contextual factors within the care home that influence both the trial processes and the implementation of the intervention. CONCLUSION: Utilising an implementation framework as the basis for a theoretically informed process evaluation provides an approach that specifically focuses on the contextual factors that may influence and shape the pathways to impact a given complex intervention a priori, while also providing an understanding of how and why an intervention may be effective. This contrasts with the more common post hoc approach that only focuses on implementation after the empirical results have emerged.

Earlier cancer diagnosis in primary care: a feasibility economic analysis of ThinkCancer!

BACKGROUND: UK cancer survival rates are much lower compared with other high-income countries. In primary care, there are opportunities for GPs and other healthcare professionals to act more quickly in response to presented symptoms that might represent cancer. ThinkCancer! is a complex behaviour change intervention aimed at primary care practice teams to improve the timely diagnosis of cancer. AIM: To explore the costs of delivering the ThinkCancer! intervention to expedite cancer diagnosis in primary care. DESIGN & SETTING: Feasibility economic analysis using a micro-costing approach, which was undertaken in 19 general practices in Wales, UK. METHOD: From an NHS perspective, micro-costing methodology was used to determine whether it was feasible to gather sufficient economic data to cost the ThinkCancer! INTERVENTION: Owing to the COVID-19 pandemic, ThinkCancer! was mainly delivered remotely online in a digital format. Budget impact analysis (BIA) and sensitivity analysis were conducted to explore the costs of face-to-face delivery of the ThinkCancer! intervention as intended pre-COVID-19. RESULTS: The total costs of delivering the ThinkCancer! intervention across 19 general practices in Wales was £25 030, with an average cost per practice of £1317 (standard deviation [SD]: 578.2). Findings from the BIA indicated a total cost of £34 630 for face-to-face delivery. CONCLUSION: Data collection methods were successful in gathering sufficient health economics data to cost the ThinkCancer! INTERVENTION: Results of this feasibility study will be used to inform a future definitive economic evaluation alongside a pragmatic randomised controlled trial (RCT).

The intricacy of interactions: qualitative exploration of preferences and perceptions of advance care planning among healthcare professionals, patients and those close to them.

Objectives: Advance care planning (ACP) is a way of documenting preferences in case of a change or decline in health via verbal discussion and may include a written document. ACP relates not only to treatment preferences but to all aspects of future care such as place of death, plans for dependents and spiritual beliefs. Research has shown that ACP can have a positive impact but needs further understanding to enhance communication and increase uptake. This article focusses on the importance and intricacy of interactions and why a preference-based approach may be beneficial for the future. Methods: This article reports two separate, but related, pieces of qualitative research. First, focus groups to evaluate perspectives of healthcare professionals (HCPs) following their attendance at a North Wales ACP training workshop. The second study comprised interviews exploring the views of patients, those close to them and HCPs regarding ACP. Results: ACP interactions are complex and intricate. There is an association with end of life rather than changes in health among patients and HCPs often view discussions as akin to 'breaking bad news'. Good communication between patients, loved ones and HCPs is essential to reduce distress and ensure preferences are understood. Trust between patients and HCPs is of high importance and often a patient will have a preferred HCP who they feel comfortable discussing ACP with. Conclusion: A preference-based approach to ACP has potential to widen participation in ACP, relieve anxiety and ease burden for patients and carers. Further research is needed to identify ways to increase inclusivity.

The juxtaposition of the natural and the medical perspectives in noisy breathing at the end of life.

BACKGROUND: Noisy breathing is common at the end of life. Management of noisy breathing aims to reduce the noise via repositioning the person, suctioning the person's airways and using antimuscarinic drugs. Dying people are generally thought not to be distressed by noisy breathing at the end of life, but the noise may distress others. There is doubt on whether antimuscarinic drugs are any more effective than a placebo for noisy breathing. However, antimuscarinics are still commonly administered to people at the end of life. AIM: To illuminate reasons behind decision making and noisy breathing at the end of life. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews and 'self-recorded brief accounts' with healthcare professionals. FINDINGS: Noisy breathing at the end of life is viewed as both a natural and a medical phenomenon. However, while most participants in the interviews thought that antimuscarinics were uneffective, the prescription and administration of antimuscarinics were embedded within professional culture. CONCLUSION: Managing noisy breathing is a complex issue that incorporates natural and medical viewpoints and has a long-standing culture of practice. Research should aim to determine best practice and reduce a person's distress at the end of life.

Protocol for a feasibility study incorporating a randomised pilot trial with an embedded process evaluation and feasibility economic analysis of ThinkCancer!: a primary care intervention to expedite cancer diagnosis in Wales.

BACKGROUND: Compared to the rest of Europe, the UK has relatively poor cancer outcomes, with late diagnosis and a slow referral process being major contributors. General practitioners (GPs) are often faced with patients presenting with a multitude of non-specific symptoms that could be cancer. Safety netting can be used to manage diagnostic uncertainty by ensuring patients with vague symptoms are appropriately monitored, which is now even more crucial due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and its major impact on cancer referrals. The ThinkCancer! workshop is an educational behaviour change intervention aimed at the whole general practice team, designed to improve primary care approaches to ensure timely diagnosis of cancer. The workshop will consist of teaching and awareness sessions, the appointment of a Safety Netting Champion and the development of a bespoke Safety Netting Plan and has been adapted so it can be delivered remotely. This study aims to assess the feasibility of the ThinkCancer! intervention for a future definitive randomised controlled trial. METHODS: The ThinkCancer! study is a randomised, multisite feasibility trial, with an embedded process evaluation and feasibility economic analysis. Twenty-three to 30 general practices will be recruited across Wales, randomised in a ratio of 2:1 of intervention versus control who will follow usual care. The workshop will be delivered by a GP educator and will be adapted iteratively throughout the trial period. Baseline practice characteristics will be collected via questionnaire. We will also collect primary care intervals (PCI), 2-week wait (2WW) referral rates, conversion rates and detection rates at baseline and 6 months post-randomisation. Participant feedback, researcher reflections and economic costings will be collected following each workshop. A process evaluation will assess implementation using an adapted Normalisation Measure Development (NoMAD) questionnaire and qualitative interviews. An economic feasibility analysis will inform a future economic evaluation. DISCUSSION: This study will allow us to test and further develop a novel evidenced-based complex intervention aimed at general practice teams to expedite the diagnosis of cancer in primary care. The results from this study will inform the future design of a full-scale definitive phase III trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04823559 .

Carer administration of as-needed subcutaneous medication for breakthrough symptoms in people dying at home: the CARiAD feasibility RCT.

BACKGROUND: Most people who are dying want to be cared for at home, but only half of them achieve this. The likelihood of a home death often depends on the availability of able and willing lay carers. When people who are dying are unable to take oral medication, injectable medication is used. When top-up medication is required, a health-care professional travels to the dying person's home, which may delay symptom relief. The administration of subcutaneous medication by lay carers, although not widespread UK practice, has proven to be key in achieving better symptom control for those dying at home in other countries. OBJECTIVES: To determine if carer administration of as-needed subcutaneous medication for common breakthrough symptoms in people dying at home is feasible and acceptable in the UK, and if it would be feasible to test this intervention in a future definitive randomised controlled trial. DESIGN: We conducted a two-arm, parallel-group, individually randomised, open pilot trial of the intervention versus usual care, with a 1 : 1 allocation ratio, using convergent mixed methods. SETTING: Home-based care without 24/7 paid care provision, in three UK sites. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were dyads of adult patients and carers: patients in the last weeks of their life who wished to die at home and lay carers who were willing to be trained to give subcutaneous medication. Strict risk assessment criteria needed to be met before approach, including known history of substance abuse or carer ability to be trained to competency. INTERVENTION: Intervention-group carers received training by local nurses using a manualised training package. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Quantitative data were collected at baseline and 6-8 weeks post bereavement and via carer diaries. Interviews with carers and health-care professionals explored attitudes to, experiences of and preferences for giving subcutaneous medication and experience of trial processes. The main outcomes of interest were feasibility, acceptability, recruitment rates, attrition and selection of the most appropriate outcome measures. RESULTS: In total, 40 out of 101 eligible dyads were recruited (39.6%), which met the feasibility criterion of recruiting > 30% of eligible dyads. The expected recruitment target (≈50 dyads) was not reached, as fewer than expected participants were identified. Although the overall retention rate was 55% (22/40), this was substantially unbalanced [30% (6/20) usual care and 80% (16/20) intervention]. The feasibility criterion of > 40% retention was, therefore, considered not met. A total of 12 carers (intervention, n = 10; usual care, n = 2) and 20 health-care professionals were interviewed. The intervention was considered acceptable, feasible and safe in the small study population. The context of the feasibility study was not ideal, as district nurses were seriously overstretched and unfamiliar with research methods. A disparity in readiness to consider the intervention was demonstrated between carers and health-care professionals. Findings showed that there were methodological and ethics issues pertaining to researching last days of life care. CONCLUSION: The success of a future definitive trial is uncertain because of equivocal results in the progression criteria, particularly poor recruitment overall and a low retention rate in the usual-care group. Future work regarding the intervention should include understanding the context of UK areas where this has been adopted, ascertaining wider public views and exploring health-care professional views on burden and risk in the NHS context. There should be consideration of the need for national policy and of the most appropriate quantitative outcome measures to use. This will help to ascertain if there are unanswered questions to be studied in a trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN11211024. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 25. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Most people in the UK would prefer to die at home, but only half of them achieve this. This usually depends on having able and willing lay carers (family or friends) to help look after them. Once swallowing is not possible, medicine is given continually under the skin (syringe driver). If common problems such as pain, vomiting or agitation break through, health-care professionals attend to give extra doses. The wait for a health-care professional to arrive can be distressing. In the UK, it is legal (but not routine) for lay carers to give needle-free subcutaneous injections themselves. We reworked an Australian carer education package for UK use. The best way to find out if this would work well is to do a randomised controlled trial. This is a test in which, at random, half of the people taking part receive 'usual care' and the other half receive the 'new care' or intervention. A pilot randomised controlled trial (a 'test' trial to see if a larger one is worth doing) was carried out to determine if lay carer injections were possible in the UK. We approached 90 dyads (a dying person and a key carer) and, of these, 40 were willing to take part and 22 completed the follow-up visit, so we could analyse their data. Of these 22 dyads, 16 were in the intervention group (lay carer injects) and six were in the control group (usual care). All carers were asked to keep a diary. Carers and health-care professionals were interviewed (qualitative study) and carer preferences were assessed. This new practice was safe, acceptable and welcomed. Carer confidence increased rapidly, symptom control was quicker and the interviews backed up these findings. Recruitment was low owing to overstretched health-care professionals. Only certain families were picked. Dyads in the usual-care group often wished they were in the intervention group. Carers found it difficult to complete some of the questionnaires that were used to measure the effect of the intervention. Therefore, uncertainty remains as to whether or not a full trial should proceed. Because the practice is already legal, some areas in the UK are already undertaking it. We plan to study what makes this practice possible or less possible to achieve.

Pragmatic methods for reviewing exceptionally large bodies of evidence: systematic mapping review and overview of systematic reviews using lung cancer survival as an exemplar.

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer (LC) is the most common cause of cancer death in the world and associated with significant economic burden. We conducted a review of published literature to identify prognostic factors associated with LC survival and determine which may be modifiable and could be targeted to improve outcomes. METHODS: The exceptionally large volume of LC prognostic research required a new staged approach to reviewing the literature. This comprised an initial mapping review of existing reviews or meta-analyses, based on titles and abstracts, followed by an overview of systematic reviews evaluating factors that independently contribute to lung cancer survival. The overview of reviews was based on full text papers and incorporated a more in-depth assessment of reviews evaluating modifiable factors. RESULTS: A large volume of published systematic reviews and meta-analyses were identified, but very few focused on modifiable factors for LC survival. Several modifiable factors were identified, which are potential candidates for targeted interventions aiming to improve cancer outcomes. The mapping review included 398 reviews, of which 207 investigated the independent effect of prognostic factors on lung cancer survival. The most frequently evaluated factors were novel biomarkers (86 biomarkers in 138 reviews). Only 15 modifiable factors were investigated in 20 reviews. Those associated with significant survival improvement included normal BMI/less weight loss, good performance status, not smoking/quitting after diagnosis, good pre-treatment quality of life, small gross volume tumour, early-stage tumour, lung resection undertaken by a thoracic/cardiothoracic surgeon, care being discussed by a multidisciplinary team, and timeliness of care. CONCLUSIONS: The study utilised a novel approach for reviewing an extensive and complicated body of research evidence. It enabled us to address a broad research question and focus on a specific area of priority. The staged approach ensured the review remained relevant to the stakeholders throughout, whilst maintaining the use of objective and transparent methods. It also provided important information on the needs of future research. However, it required extensive planning, management, and ongoing reviewer training.

CARer-ADministration of as-needed subcutaneous medication for breakthrough symptoms in homebased dying patients (CARiAD): study protocol for a UK-based open randomised pilot trial.

BACKGROUND: While the majority of seriously ill people wish to die at home, only half achieve this. The likelihood of someone dying at home often depends on the availability of able and willing lay carers to support them. Dying people are usually unable to take oral medication. When top-up symptom relief medication is required, a clinician travels to the home to administer injectable medication, with attendant delays. The administration of subcutaneous injections by lay carers, though not widespread practice in the UK, has proven key in achieving home deaths in other countries. Our aim is to determine if carer-administration of as-needed subcutaneous medication for four frequent breakthrough symptoms (pain, nausea, restlessness and noisy breathing) in home-based dying patients is feasible and acceptable in the UK. METHODS: This paper describes a randomised pilot trial across three UK sites, with an embedded qualitative study. Dyads of adult patients/carers are eligible, where patients are in the last weeks of life and wish to die at home, and lay carers who are willing to be trained to give subcutaneous medication. Dyads who do not meet strict risk assessment criteria (including known history of substance abuse or carer ability to be trained to competency) will not be approached. Carers in the intervention arm will receive a manualised training package delivered by their local nursing team. Dyads in the control arm will receive usual care. The main outcomes of interest are feasibility, acceptability, recruitment rates, attrition and selection of the most appropriate outcome measures. Interviews with carers and healthcare professionals will explore attitudes to, experiences of and preferences for giving subcutaneous medication and experience of trial processes. The study has obtained full ethical approval. DISCUSSION: This study will rehearse the procedures and logistics which will be undertaken in a future definitive randomised controlled trial and will inform the design of such a study. Findings will illuminate methodological and ethical issues pertaining to researching last days of life care. The study is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (Health Technology Assessment [HTA] project 15/10/37). TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN 11211024 . Registered on 27 September 2016.